Namecoin is the first solution to produce a naming system that is simultaneously secure, decentralized, and human-meaningful.

I don't understand why torrent website owner did'nt catch up on this yet

I'm unaware of any BitTorrent indexes using Namecoin, but TheShadowBrokers used Namecoin for a while [1]. I guess TSB are a bit ahead of the curve compared to BitTorrent index operators [2].

[1] I believe they removed the links to their Namecoin domain name from their Twitter and Steemit profiles in the last few weeks, which coincided with most of their Twitter posts disappearing. However, it looks like their Namecoin domain name is still active. I don't know what the backstory there is.

[2] The usual disclaimer applies that while I wouldn't be surprised if TSB are capable of using Namecoin safely, I don't endorse average-skilled people using Namecoin for high-risk activity.

Namecoin is the first solution to produce a naming system that is simultaneously secure, decentralized, and human-meaningful.

I don't understand why torrent website owner did'nt catch up on this yet

I'm unaware of any BitTorrent indexes using Namecoin, but TheShadowBrokers used Namecoin for a while [1]. I guess TSB are a bit ahead of the curve compared to BitTorrent index operators [2].

[1] I believe they removed the links to their Namecoin domain name from their Twitter and Steemit profiles in the last few weeks, which coincided with most of their Twitter posts disappearing. However, it looks like their Namecoin domain name is still active. I don't know what the backstory there is.

[2] The usual disclaimer applies that while I wouldn't be surprised if TSB are capable of using Namecoin safely, I don't endorse average-skilled people using Namecoin for high-risk activity.

Aaron wrote a proposal for Nakanames, which described a system very similar to Namecoin. Aaron wrote this a few months after Appamatto proposed BitDNS, but a few months before Vince released Namecoin. So to that extent, Aaron was involved with Namecoin. I am unaware of any conversations/discussions that Aaron had with the Namecoin developers (or the BitDNS discussion participants).

Aaron wrote a proposal for Nakanames, which described a system very similar to Namecoin. Aaron wrote this a few months after Appamatto proposed BitDNS, but a few months before Vince released Namecoin. So to that extent, Aaron was involved with Namecoin. I am unaware of any conversations/discussions that Aaron had with the Namecoin developers (or the BitDNS discussion participants).

A philosophical opinion.

Almost any educated person supports Aaron Swartz's pushing to make information more freely available, and to minimize the harm caused by bureaucratic malignancies.

However with TSB there is a more blurry line. For one, we don't know if he or she is motivated by an ideal that should be supported. TSB could well be an alphabet agency employee who used the pretext of a leak or hack to cover widespread targeted use of certain tools in a specific geographic area. If I were Eastern European that would seem to be what the evidence suggests.

Aaron Swartzs are often times killed or driven to the grave by their governments, because they feel protected by their good intentions, they were raised with the belief "you do not attack good intentions", but do not understand that many people who seek government jobs are raised more with the ideal "you do not attack power".

TSB survives, either because he or she is smart enough to anticipate the possible threats generated by bureaucrats, or because he/she is acting on their behalf.

The best that Namecoin can hope to offer, in my opinion, is the same protection from physical harm to Aaron Swartz, and others who mistakenly trust the bureaucrats, as it offers to more savvy players like TSB. If those two were on equal footing, if both Aaron Swartz nd TSB had equal surviveability in our environment, there would be possible a public examination of the motives of each, and much to be learned by that. Instead the mass of people are forced to timidly avoid death by not violating empty rules.

Aaron Swartzs are often times killed or driven to the grave by their governments, because they feel protected by their good intentions, they were raised with the belief "you do not attack good intentions", but do not understand that many people who seek government jobs are raised more with the ideal "you do not attack power".

Very true

I think most people do not want to attack "good", not out of education or belief but because of how it feels. To materialists everything is relative (except for their belief in materialism), to them good and evil are relative, but feelings and emotions are ultimately the drive behind every of our actions and shape everything that we experience, they are what is most real, and so the ideal of goodness is not merely a belief, it is something more. To pursue good is not an empty quest, it is profoundly worth it and no rationalization could ever change that.

And most people pursue "good", both the Swartzs and the people seeking government jobs, but the latter have been indoctrinated into associating power with good. They are both pursuing the same goal but the latter ones have been blinded by their education, that has ingrained into their mind that believing in the authority is good, and then Aaron Swartzs are singled out as threats to what they believe is good. But their belief is an artificial one, imposed upon them by those who seek control and power to have safety, by those who think about themselves before thinking about others. And those are afraid to let go of that control ultimately because they fear others. And it is fear that drives evil which drives more fear in an endless self-reinforcing circle.

And if decentralization allows to break that circle, by forcing those in power to let go of their control, by showing the world that we are all inherently after the same thing, that no great catastrophe will come from allowing every individual to be free, that the will for good is more powerful than evil, that there is more good in each and everyone of us than we tend to think, then good will self-reinforce rather than fear and then we all win.

Aaron wrote a proposal for Nakanames, which described a system very similar to Namecoin. Aaron wrote this a few months after Appamatto proposed BitDNS, but a few months before Vince released Namecoin. So to that extent, Aaron was involved with Namecoin. I am unaware of any conversations/discussions that Aaron had with the Namecoin developers (or the BitDNS discussion participants).

Aaron Swartzs are often times killed or driven to the grave by their governments, because they feel protected by their good intentions, they were raised with the belief "you do not attack good intentions", but do not understand that many people who seek government jobs are raised more with the ideal "you do not attack power".

TSB survives, either because he or she is smart enough to anticipate the possible threats generated by bureaucrats, or because he/she is acting on their behalf.

The best that Namecoin can hope to offer, in my opinion, is the same protection from physical harm to Aaron Swartz, and others who mistakenly trust the bureaucrats, as it offers to more savvy players like TSB. If those two were on equal footing, if both Aaron Swartz nd TSB had equal surviveability in our environment, there would be possible a public examination of the motives of each, and much to be learned by that. Instead the mass of people are forced to timidly avoid death by not violating empty rules.

Yes -- it's definitely not an ideal situation when only unusually sophisticated actors like TSB can use Namecoin safely in high-risk situations. Our public position has always been that Namecoin isn't anonymous and that people who need anonymity shouldn't use Namecoin until Namecoin's anonymity issues are fixed. Of course, the reality is more complicated; highly skilled users like TSB may very well be capable of using Namecoin anonymously. But if we say that too loudly, it would probably encourage the misconception that average users can use Namecoin anonymously, which would probably lead to whistleblowers getting arrested (or worse).

So while it's certainly interesting to see that TSB is (apparently) successfully using Namecoin, that doesn't negate the problem you cite: right now, the more savvy players have a substantially better position, and we need to make the playing field a lot more level. Part of the NLnet funding will be used to improve anonymity, but anonymity isn't the primary focus of the NLnet funding, and there's a lot that needs to be done in this department.

I'm not sure how most of it works but could NMC be used as a simple address tool for Lightning Network transactions?

From the looks of things you have to enter a long string to connect to a channel. Would be easier to connect to xyz.bit

You could probably use Namecoin for something like this, but as my familiarity with Lightning is somewhat lacking right now (need to catch up on that topic...) it's possible that there would be issues that I'm unaware of. How often do new Lightning addresses get created? Is reuse of Lightning addresses a problem like reuse of P2PKH/P2SH addresses is?